How long till Thompson leaves the BBC?

2»

Comments

  • HammyHammy Posts: 4,837
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »

    So, 4.12million, with a share of the available audience of 23.8%. Pretty good that it got nearly a quarter of the audience who watched TV at that time.


    Still, let's not let reasonable facts and assumptions get in the way .....


    Yes, let's not get facts and assumptions get in the way.

    I was replying to whether he appealed to a "small minority" or not, so even going by your figures, he didn't appeal to 76.2% of the viewing population at that particular time of night, not to mention the rest of the population that decided that there was something more appealing to do than turning on a TV programme, ie going out, watching a DVD, reading a book, listening to radio, going to bed, etc etc.

    Which ever way you look at it, his appeal is limited to a small minority of the population.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hammy wrote: »
    I thought i was replying to whether he appealed to a small minority or not, not how he compared to another chat show. But if you want perspectives, how about, that Antiques Roadshow is more popular than his Chat show, seems that antiques gathering dust in folks lofts have more "appeal" than than Mr Ross, says it all really.:)


    He has "appeal", it's the size of that "appeal" that is in question. His viewing figures would suggest that his "appeal" is limited to a small minority of the population.

    You really do have to compare like with like...

    So using your analysis and equating it to the wider TV world, you could also say that Eastenders also has a very limited appeal, with 9 million viewers compared to a total population of 60 million. In fact you could say that any TV programme or personallity has a very limited appeal to the wider world, but that's not the point is it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hammy wrote: »
    Yes, let's not get facts and assumptions get in the way.

    I was replying to whether he appealed to a "small minority" or not, so even going by your figures, he didn't appeal to 76.2% of the viewing population at that particular time of night, not to mention the rest of the population that decided that there was something more appealing to do than turning on a TV programme, ie going out, watching a DVD, reading a book, listening to radio, going to bed, etc etc.

    Which ever way you look at it, his appeal is limited to a small minority of the population.

    On a broadcasting forum discussing the BBC and someone makes a post saying....
    Originally Posted by Bob22A
    Well you are out of line with the vast majority. On the BBC web site by majority of a 100 to 1 people want Ross sacked.

    Now Ross's crude & lewd , vulgur obscenities may appeal to you but you are in a very small minority.

    ... the assumption is made that he is referring to the available television audience and not the world population as a whole.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,958
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I really expect that he'll go sooner rather than later, I expect there's an agenda amongst the staff following his unpopular actions to get rid, even if there's no conspiracy. One further major incident and he'll be history. There seems to be some Management - Trust dispute over the way forward too so that can't do his prospects well.
  • HammyHammy Posts: 4,837
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You really do have to compare like with like...

    So using your analysis and equating it to the wider TV world, you could also say that Eastenders also has a very limited appeal, with 9 million viewers compared to a total population of 60 million. In fact you could say that any TV programme or personallity has a very limited appeal to the wider world, but that's not the point is it.

    But it is the point.

    The population as a whole or even if we just choose the 52 million that tune in to TV at some point during the average week, are all potential viewers, those that have chosen not to tune in at 10.30pm on a Friday to watch Ross, have done so because Ross doesn't appeal to them, they would rather tune in to something else or do something else (Non TV) instead, in other words he (and many television shows or personalities these days) do have a small minority appeal to the total potential viewing public.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hammy wrote: »
    I thought i was replying to whether he appealed to a small minority or not, not how he compared to another chat show. But if you want perspectives, how about, that Antiques Roadshow is more popular than his Chat show, seems that antiques gathering dust in folks lofts have more "appeal" than than Mr Ross, says it all really.:)
    And do you think that the general makeup of his audience is likely to be the same as that of AR?

    I would suggest that you read my post above.


    He has "appeal", it's the size of that "appeal" that is in question. His viewing figures would suggest that his "appeal" is limited to a small minority of the population.
    And on your logic, so is that of AR.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hammy wrote: »
    Yes, let's not get facts and assumptions get in the way.

    I was replying to whether he appealed to a "small minority" or not, so even going by your figures, he didn't appeal to 76.2% of the viewing population at that particular time of night,
    Well, point me in the direction of a programme that appealed to a majority (i.e >50%) of the available viewers. Even the mighty X Factor can't manage this normally.



    It ist quite obvious that you don't fully understand this concept as it applies to a multi-channel environment.
  • HammyHammy Posts: 4,837
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    And do you think that the general makeup of his audience is likely to be the same as that of AR?

    I would suggest that you read my post above.


    I highly doubt it, but that has no bearing on whether his appeal is to a small minority or not.


    And on your logic, so is that of AR.


    Yes, and that would be yes to virtually every programme out there these days. Gone are the days when individual programmes could appeal to vast numbers of the potential viewing public.
  • HammyHammy Posts: 4,837
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    Well, point me in the direction of a programme that appealed to a majority (i.e >50%) of the available viewers. Even the mighty X Factor can't manage this normally.


    Which is why most programmes including Ross only appeal to a minority of the audience, and in some cases like Ross and many of the programmes on the digital channels a small minority.




    It ist quite obvious that you don't fully understand this concept as it applies to a multi-channel environment.


    Oh i do, it's you who won't accept that the vast majority of potential TV viewers out there, have found something more appealing to watch or do than watching Ross, which make Ross only appealing to a small minority of the potential viewing audience that could be attracted.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You continue to ignore the point, one which has been explained in a few other posts (and by other posters). Therefore, to me, it seems pointless continuing the exchange.
  • yagyag Posts: 1,640
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hammy wrote: »
    Yes, let's not get facts and assumptions get in the way.

    I was replying to whether he appealed to a "small minority" or not, so even going by your figures, he didn't appeal to 76.2% of the viewing population at that particular time of night, not to mention the rest of the population that decided that there was something more appealing to do than turning on a TV programme, ie going out, watching a DVD, reading a book, listening to radio, going to bed, etc etc.

    Which ever way you look at it, his appeal is limited to a small minority of the population.


    What rot. Have you considered what you are saying??
  • HammyHammy Posts: 4,837
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    yag wrote: »
    What rot. Have you considered what you are saying??


    Yes i have, have you?
  • The Lord LucanThe Lord Lucan Posts: 5,054
    Forum Member
    Don't think you have.. and i think the Majority will back me up on that :)
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    I think the worrying thing is that with Mark Thompson away on holiday the BBC seemed gripped with inertia. He has a deputy called Mark Byford who was not on holiday. But we heard nothing from Mr Byford. Surely the whole point about a deputy is that he/she acts in your absence.It was only when Mark Thompson interrupted his holiday and came back that things began to happen. This all suggests that really the post of deputy D-G can be dispensed with.

    My thanks to the NOTW today for clarifying that although Byford is Thompson's official deputy, when the DG is away his deputy does not actually deputise - someone else does.Which rather begs the question - what does Byford actually do - on the face of it the answer appears to be nothing:eek:
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    Which rather begs the question - what does Byford actually do
    Well there is this .....
    When Mark Thompson was appointed Director-General in June 2004, he enhanced Mark Byford's role as his number two to be head of all the BBC's journalism at UK, international and local levels – the first time such an appointment has been made.



    In July 2006 his responsibilities were extended further to also include BBC Sport.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/executives/markbyford.shtml
  • ftvftv Posts: 31,668
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So presumably what happened on Radio 2 did not fall into the category of journalism or sport:confused:
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ftv wrote: »
    So presumably what happened on Radio 2 did not fall into the category of journalism or sport:confused:
    That piece did not say that was all that he did, so it would be presumptive to say yay or nay.
Sign In or Register to comment.